A
antonyluby
Guest
Kind regards.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
There are examples of apparent design in the world that are not due to design. For example on Chesil Beach in the south of England the stones on the beach are sorted in size order from one end to the other. Another example is this from Spitsbergen (click picture for link):
newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38703000/jpg/_38703439_arc300.jpg
The human brain is not a reliable detector of design. Our brains are wired up to detect patterns in what we see. How many times have you seen a face in the clouds? We see an apparantly designed face in coulds, but that is not a designed face, it is merely a shape onto which our brain has overlaid the perception of design.
Science requires an objective way to measure design. So far nothing from the ID movement has met this requirement. Subjective statements cannot be science. In that absence of a reliable design detector, and given that there is nothing in any living organism that cannot have evolved then Occams Razor requires that we do not introduce the additional hypothesis of a Designer or Designers.
As I said, if you define design as making a choice between different options then natural selection can do that and you have design without a conscious designer.
Show your evidence. I gave the mechanism by which random mutation and natural selection transferred information from the environment to the genome. You have only provided assertion.
Science can certainly detect order in the universe. Whether or not that order is that work of one or other of the many gods proposed by men is not a question for science.
Science deals with material causes for material events. Within its limits it is extremely successful, and the Church is aware of this. Every time that has been an argument between a religion and science on some feature of the material universe, science has won the argument. The Church has enough wisdom to realise this which is why the Pope is following the line he does. It has been the standard Church line for a long time not to confront science in the arena of science.
Theology is indeed based on divine revelation. Jewish theology, Christian theology, Muslim theology, Hindu theology and so forth are all based on divine revelation. Generally I leave theology to the theologians.
Science will tell you that He did not make them male and female from the beginning because the only organisms found in the earliest rocks did not reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction only evolved later and even then many of them were probably hermaphrodite.
rossum
A
antonyluby
Guest
Again, Rossum, if you don’t do ‘ultimate truth’ then, again, why are you here?
R
rossum
Guest
As I said, we see faces, castles and so forth in clouds. Those things appear to us to be designed, but actually they are not. Hence we can infer that the human brain is not always reliable when it detects design.
Evolution has been observed repeatedly - we can see allele frequencies changing in interbreeding populations. We have never seen any disembodied desigher at work shifting base pairs around to make changes to DNA. Do you have any evidence at all of DNA being rearranged by a disembodied designer?
Evolution. A pattern such as = can be a very useful pattern to learn. Such patterns will be favoured by evolution.
By what mechanism? Please provide experimental or observational evidence that a disembodied designer moves base pairs within DNA molecules. If your proposed designer cannot rearrange base pairs then the designer has no mechanism to implement any of its designs.
I can observe the intelligent design of websites, I have done it myself. I can observe the intelligent design of DNA by humans - as with GM crops or various experimental mouse strains. I have never seen any observations to show the rearrangement of DNA by a disembodied designer.
There is a mechanism in RM & NS for transferring information from the environment to DNA which has been observed and is known to work. You are proposing an alternative mechanism which has never been observed and has never been shown to work. I know which one my money is on.
Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.
Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.
(Dhammapada 1 vv 1-2)
If you want to place God inside science, then God is subject to experimental verification. I propose an experiment. Take two atheists, one Christian, one Muslim, one Hindu etc. Assign each of these people 100 amputees. The first atheist prays to no god at all. The second atheist prays to the Invisible Pink Unicorn (who everyone agrees is not real), the rest pray to their respective God or gods. Each person prays that their amputees regrow their amputated limbs. At the end of the experiment we count up the the number of regrown limbs from each group. Are you prepared to abide by the results of such an experiment? Do you expect the number of regrown limbs for your God to be greater than that for the other gods? Will your God do better than the IPU? Will your God do better than the atheist who prays to no gods?
Given the likely result of such an experiment then what would be the conclusion a scientist would draw?
Because I do not want religiously based pseudo-science, such as young earth creationism, taught in state schools at my expense. In this forum I generally post only in evolution related threads.
I do do ultimate truth, my sig tells you what the ultimate truth is.
rossum
A
aquinasthegreat
Guest
As a believer, either we are an evolutionist or creationist, we must hold to three points as a pillar of our science:
Mario
- Human soul infused directly by God
- Monogenesis
- It’s all happen within His plan and not by accident.
Mario
Z
Zachary
Guest
Evolutionists don’t accept God. The religious can accept both.
Science, specifically grade 1 math, proves infinity, a concept which is beyond the grasp of reason. And since nothing of this world that is infinite, there must be something not of this “world”. Cause and effect. 3-1-1-1 = 0 however if we apply this to evolution, if we were to reach 0, then we prove that there is no existance and, therefore, no evolution. Even if 0 was “chance” or “an accident”, it had to have come from something physical. So 0-1-1-1 = -3 which is not possible of the physical world. So it had to start with 1 and, if so, if it would have to be infinite, which cannot be physical. Therefore, something must have created all. Big Bang had to have come from something physical of which there is nothing infinite. Therefore, it must have been created by the infinite. Forgive my ineloquance, but this is proof of intellegent design and makes Evolution vs God arguement irrelevant. The only infinity, God, created all. God created humans in his image, but not as carbon copies. We are not perfect (infinite).
How’s that?
Science, specifically grade 1 math, proves infinity, a concept which is beyond the grasp of reason. And since nothing of this world that is infinite, there must be something not of this “world”. Cause and effect. 3-1-1-1 = 0 however if we apply this to evolution, if we were to reach 0, then we prove that there is no existance and, therefore, no evolution. Even if 0 was “chance” or “an accident”, it had to have come from something physical. So 0-1-1-1 = -3 which is not possible of the physical world. So it had to start with 1 and, if so, if it would have to be infinite, which cannot be physical. Therefore, something must have created all. Big Bang had to have come from something physical of which there is nothing infinite. Therefore, it must have been created by the infinite. Forgive my ineloquance, but this is proof of intellegent design and makes Evolution vs God arguement irrelevant. The only infinity, God, created all. God created humans in his image, but not as carbon copies. We are not perfect (infinite).
How’s that?
A
aquinasthegreat
Guest
I don’t think your response consist of a valid argument, since I don’t see anywhere in my post denying God as a first cause of all existence.Evolutionists don’t accept God. The religious can accept both.
Science, specifically grade 1 math, proves infinity, a concept which is beyond the grasp of reason. And since nothing of this world that is infinite, there must be something not of this “world”. Cause and effect. 3-1-1-1 = 0 however if we apply this to evolution, if we were to reach 0, then we prove that there is no existance and, therefore, no evolution. Even if 0 was “chance” or “an accident”, it had to have come from something physical. So 0-1-1-1 = -3 which is not possible of the physical world. So it had to start with 1 and, if so, if it would have to be infinite, which cannot be physical. Therefore, something must have created all. Big Bang had to have come from something physical of which there is nothing infinite. Therefore, it must have been created by the infinite. Forgive my ineloquance, but this is proof of intellegent design and makes Evolution vs God arguement irrelevant. The only infinity, God, created all. God created humans in his image, but not as carbon copies. We are not perfect (infinite).
How’s that?
You said: “Evolutionists don’t accept God”, some does but is not a universal necessaty that “evolutionist” as a whole “don’t accept God”. Everybody in their own common sense must come into a conclution about the 1st actuality and a prime cause, either a mere potentiality or hopefully is actualized ‘in some way’.
Back to the topic, as I understand it, the largest group that against the theory of evolution is not the religious, but the panthologist. However my point is, there might be another evidence that either proof (or) disproof the theory of evolution ‘as we understand’ it now in the future; either it is or not, as long as we are in the right patern which is within those three points I mentioned, we are ok
Mario
A
antonyluby
Guest
As I said, we see faces, castles and so forth in clouds. Those things appear to us to be designed, but actually they are not. Hence we can infer that the human brain is not always reliable when it detects design.
This is self-defeating Rossum. You’ve just differentiated between design (castles etc) and non-design.
Evolution has been observed repeatedly - we can see allele frequencies changing in interbreeding populations. We have never seen any disembodied desigher at work shifting base pairs around to make changes to DNA. Do you have any evidence at all of DNA being rearranged by a disembodied designer?
This is evidence for speciation.
DNA is implanted by the Creator - it is His handiwork.
Evolution. A pattern such as = can be a very useful pattern to learn. Such patterns will be favoured by evolution.
By what mechanism? Please provide experimental or observational evidence that a disembodied designer moves base pairs within DNA molecules. If your proposed designer cannot rearrange base pairs then the designer has no mechanism to implement any of its designs.
I can observe the intelligent design of websites, I have done it myself. I can observe the intelligent design of DNA by humans - as with GM crops or various experimental mouse strains. I have never seen any observations to show the rearrangement of DNA by a disembodied designer.
Designer has to be disembodied as he is outwith of space and time.
There is a mechanism in RM & NS for transferring information from the environment to DNA which has been observed and is known to work. You are proposing an alternative mechanism which has never been observed and has never been shown to work. I know which one my money is on.
Mind precedes all conditions, mind is their chief, they are mind-made.If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you, as the wheel follows the draught ox.
Mind precedes all conditions, mind is their chief, they are mind-made.If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,as a shadow that never leaves.
(Dhammapada 1 vv 1-2)A lovely quote! thank you.
If you want to place God inside science, then God is subject to experimental verification. I propose an experiment. Take two atheists, one Christian, one Muslim, one Hindu etc. Assign each of these people 100 amputees. The first atheist prays to no god at all. The second atheist prays to the Invisible Pink Unicorn (who everyone agrees is not real), the rest pray to their respective God or gods. Each person prays that their amputees regrow their amputated limbs. At the end of the experiment we count up the the number of regrown limbs from each group. Are you prepared to abide by the results of such an experiment? Do you expect the number of regrown limbs for your God to be greater than that for the other gods? Will your God do better than the IPU? Will your God do better than the atheist who prays to no gods?
Given the likely result of such an experiment then what would be the conclusion a scientist would draw?
Its not me that places God within science it is the professor of physics, Tipler, and other eminent scientists such as Hawking and Penrose. I’ve just started to read the book I mentioned in the previous post - you might wish to lay your hands on a copy - so far, its a stimulating and excellent read.
The question is - how well would you do? How well would I do?
Because I do not want religiously based pseudo-science, such as young earth creationism, taught in state schools at my expense. In this forum I generally post only in evolution related threads.
Consider a career change? Why not teach RE in secondary schools - in my experience its the best subject to teach.
I do do ultimate truth, my sig tells you what the ultimate truth is.
I’m intrigued - you’ve got me beat. You can’t have it both ways. Either there is or there isn’t ultimate truth.
rossum
C
CrypticWritings
Guest
That’s how I see the whole situation. I can’t really say I actually care about evolution. It lacks any true philosophy and it doesn’t address the issues of a first cause as something can not come from nothing. Evolutionists are only reviewing and studying a process. When and if someday they do find the “beginning” it may point to the same first cause realizing that there has to be an Absolute Being behind it all. I’m sure they will then be in for a surprise and wish they had spent their time more wisely as I know I often do.
If I hadn’t seen a loved one in years and all of the sudden we were able to spend time in each other’s presence again, my first question wouldn’t be “hey wait, how did you get here!?”. Instead I’d desire to spend time with them and make plans together.
If we humans would put as much effort into working on our interior lives as we did worrying about evolution, we would have far fewer problems in this world.
Unfortunately, original sin means that man is always subject to pride and despair, always trying to disprove body or soul instead of finding peace with both and loving God with body and soul.
A
aquinasthegreat
Guest
“The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” Cardinal Baronius, Cong. Orat.
R
rossum
Guest
There is evidence for the size of the past population in our DNA. If the population was small then there are a limited number of variants (alleles) possible in our genes. Scientific study of the variations in the human genome indicate that the minimum population was between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs about 70,000 years ago. The probability is that the population was towards the upper end of this range.
Other animals show much more significant population bottlenecks. There is hardly any genetic variation in cheetahs for instance. They are so similar that they can accept skin grafts from each other without any problems of rejection. DNA studies indicate that the cheetah population dropped to a single family about 10,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age.
There is no scientific evidence for a population as low as two (Adam and Eve) or as low as eight (Noah and family).
rossum
H
hecd2
Guest
My position on this subject (Mitochondrial Eve) is extremely strong as I have studied it in some detail. Have you? I notice that you are completely unable or unwilling to engage in any specific discussion about the points at issue - not a single word about any specific argument in the article, just the tedious rehashing of Paley’s 18th century canard of natural theology, long since disproven.hecd2:
was demolished by me here:
evolutionpages.com/Mteve_…blical_eve.htm
Alec
Sorry, Alec, but I beg to differ. For me, this is far from a demolition job. The hectoring tone and ad hominem remarks betray a fundamental weakness of your position. Human beings are clearly designed - even Dawkins, in desperation, concedes that this appears to be the case.
In case you were unable to understand them, Wieland’s articles and mine have nothing to do with design or the appearance of design, but whether Mitochondrial Eve provides scientific support for a Young Earth Creationist’s biblical Eve 6,000 years ago (it doesn’t, for very strong reasons that I explain in some detail in the article).
Here is the complete set of four articles. Any ad hominems you find will be in Wieland’s second article.
Wieland’s original article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp
My reply pointing out his errors and false claims:
evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm
Wieland replies:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4472/
I show in some detail that he doesn’t understand the very concept on which he is basing his argument, and that his other criticisms are incorrect:
evolutionpages.com/Mteve_not_biblical_eve.htm
I would be very interested to hear a substantive scientific argument against the position I lay out very carefully and fully in my articles, but will not be surprised if you are unable to provide one.
Alec
C
CarlosG
Guest
I think I evolved a little just reading this whole dang thread lol
R
rossum
Guest
Rather than interleaving your comments inside the quotation from my post, it would be easier if you put all of my words inside [noparse]
There is more to it that just that, but that will do for starters.
rossum
[/noparse] brackets so it is easier to tell who wrote what, without constantly having to compare back to my original post.
I have no problem with human design, such as real castles. My point was that when we see a castle in the clouds, it is not actually a designed object - it is just a cloud. However it looks liks a designed object - a real castle. Hence just because something looks like a designed object does not mean that it actually is a designed object. Our brains are not reliable design detectors. So far the ID movement has been unable to come up with a reliable design detector.
I asked for evidence of the designer actually making changes to DNA, you have given me assertion, not evidence. In science you need either observations or experimental evidence. Assertion might be fine for philosophy or theology but it is insufficient for science.
I have no probelem with a disembodied designer, my problem is that you have shown me no evidence that this disembodied designer can actually do any rearranging of DNA in genomes. We have direct evidence of evolution changing DNA, as with bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Where is your direct evidence of the designer making changes to DNA? As an aside, if the designer acts within space and time, then the designer cannot be entirely outside space and time. Part of the designer has to be inside space and time doing the rearrangement of DNA.
The Dhammpada is very well worth reading.
That does not remove the danger to God of experiments such as the one I describe. Do you really want to test your God against the Invisible Pink Unicorn? What happens when the experiment shows that your God is just as bad at regrowing amputated limbs as the IPU?
I spent five years teaching science and maths in secondary schools. Been there, done that, don’t want to do it again.
It is a more philosophical way of expressing the Zen proverb about the finger and the moon. Any truth that I express has to be expressed in words. Words are not, and cannot be, ultimate. Hence any words that claim to be the “Unlitmate Truth” are ipso facto not the ultimate truth simply because they are words. Words can only ever be the finger, they can never be the moon.
There is more to it that just that, but that will do for starters.
rossum
A
abu_kamoon
Guest
Evolutionists:
How would you feel if you were convicted of a capital crime based on evidence comparable to the “evidence” for evolution?
In this case, the prosecutions version continues to change as parts of his evidence are shown to be false. Parts of the evidence against you consists of fabrications, mis-identified artifacts, and planted items.
The time line for the crime that your a supposed to have committed keeps changing. There are no witnesses. You are being tried based on “scientific” evidence, which keeps changing.
How would you feel if you were convicted of a capital crime based on evidence comparable to the “evidence” for evolution?
In this case, the prosecutions version continues to change as parts of his evidence are shown to be false. Parts of the evidence against you consists of fabrications, mis-identified artifacts, and planted items.
The time line for the crime that your a supposed to have committed keeps changing. There are no witnesses. You are being tried based on “scientific” evidence, which keeps changing.
D
Dispector
Guest
Question: Has anyone calculated what the average offspring each woman would need to have (taking into consideration the extremely high rate of infant and child mortality that plagued humanity up until recent times… in developed countries) to move a population from 2 to over 6,000,000,000 in 6,000 years?
Just wondering.
Just wondering.
A
Axion
Guest
rossum;:
Similar objections arise to the supposedly accidental ability of the earth to maintain a stable environment within the extremely narrow range needed to support complex carbon-based life through hundreds of millions of years.
The nature of the strict physical laws that underlie the very existence and behaviour of matter and energy, is also something that scientists are unable even to begin to explain under the random-creation theory.
That’s a very bad analogy. A "cloud"castle is nothing like the reality of a castle. It is a temporary shifting shape. A bird’s wing, a snake’s envenoming aparatus, or even a Darwin Finch are organisms as working systems that are created of numerous individual genetic traits, all acting together in a highly complex manner. stating as “fact” that these devekloped as a result of entirely random, accidental and fortuitious processes with no proof at all of this asserion, is what is objected to.
Similar objections arise to the supposedly accidental ability of the earth to maintain a stable environment within the extremely narrow range needed to support complex carbon-based life through hundreds of millions of years.
The nature of the strict physical laws that underlie the very existence and behaviour of matter and energy, is also something that scientists are unable even to begin to explain under the random-creation theory.
R
rossum
Guest
My point exactly, it is not a real castle yet the brain sees it as some sort of castle. The reality differs from the perception. Hence we cannot rely on “it sure looks designed to me” as a method for reliably identifying design. So far the ID movement has not been able to come up with anything better.
The fact of evolution is that allele frequencies in interbreeding populations change over time. Do you object to this observable and confirmed fact?
Given that allele frequencies change over time, then science looks for mechanisms to explain why allele frequencies change. The mechanisms for these changes constitute the theory of evolution. Some parts of the theory are indeed random - random mutations, genetic drift and founder effect for example. Other parts are not, natural selection is very definitely not a random process. If you wish to add a new mechanism to explain allele frequency changes then you will have to supply scientific evidence. Please give references to scientific evidence of a designer, or designers, making changes to DNA.
Just because something is complex does not mean that it cannot evolve. Here I will cite Lenski et al: The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features and Behe and Snoke: Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues (yes, it is the same Behe). Both of these papers show that complex features can and do evolve.
Life adapts to its environment. A suitable environment for Polar Bears is not suitable for Cacti and vice versa. As long as the change is reasonably slow, and there is liquid water available, then life will adapt to the conditions.
That is cosmology, not evolution. Evolution is a biological theory, not a cosmological one.
rossum
A
antonyluby
Guest
A
antonyluby
Guest
“… just the tedious rehashing of Paley’s 18th century canard of natural theology, long since disproven.”
Alec, you are hectoring again!!! In any case, according to the ID movement the design or teleological argument is far from disproven - indeed it has been greatly strengthened by scientific findings such as the Anthropic Principle.
As this is a Catholic apologetics website I’d imagine that many contributors are more interested in theology and philosophy than science. Indeed, when it comes to evolution there is little point discussing it on a Catholic web-site. {see Pope Benedict’s point at beginning of the thread about ‘absurdity’} The vast majority of Catholics are theistic evolutionists and accept scientific findings. {see post to Rossum above} For theistic evolutionists the cause of the scientific findings is God - whereas for agnostic/atheistic evolutionists the cause is natural selection. Theistic evolutionists would simply say that God is responsible for natural selection.
The interesting point - and this is philosophical/theological - is why God chooses to operate in this way.
Regards.
Tony
Alec, you are hectoring again!!! In any case, according to the ID movement the design or teleological argument is far from disproven - indeed it has been greatly strengthened by scientific findings such as the Anthropic Principle.
As this is a Catholic apologetics website I’d imagine that many contributors are more interested in theology and philosophy than science. Indeed, when it comes to evolution there is little point discussing it on a Catholic web-site. {see Pope Benedict’s point at beginning of the thread about ‘absurdity’} The vast majority of Catholics are theistic evolutionists and accept scientific findings. {see post to Rossum above} For theistic evolutionists the cause of the scientific findings is God - whereas for agnostic/atheistic evolutionists the cause is natural selection. Theistic evolutionists would simply say that God is responsible for natural selection.
The interesting point - and this is philosophical/theological - is why God chooses to operate in this way.
Regards.
Tony
- Status